Search This Blog

Monday, November 21, 2016

After the election I took a hiatus from social media and the Internet. I was too disturbed, disgusted, and disappointed to even gather a coherent thought let alone talk meaningfully about it. Now I feel I have regained some semblance of sanity and will share with you my final thoughts and opinions on the whole Trump election.

I wonder if anyone else has noticed Trump's plans always involve doing the opposite of what is reasonable, prudent, or right.

According to Trump himself, he's going to quit social healthcare, regardless of who it affects. Very unwise.

He's going to quit the Asian Pacific Trade deal, never mind that it took decades to work out and it will benefit everyone involved. Very ill-advised.

He's going to get rid of Muslims and illegal aliens. Never mind that's racial profiling (evil) and doesn't make logistic sense on any rational scale. Very-xenophobic and racist.

He's going to ban reporters from saying "mean" things about him even if they're true. Very fascist and totalitarian.

And he feels Global Warming isn't really real, so why bother, even though the science is in and it states that Global Warming is definitely real. Very ignorant.

And his lies are endless. People complained about Hillary lying all the time, but her lies were to cover things up. They were strategic. You may not have agreed with them, or liked her very much, but Trump's lying is far worse! All he knows how to do is lie.

First he's going to revoke the marriage equality thing, but then he's claiming he never said such things and that it's perfectly fine for gays to marry and he's not going to change the law but uphold it. But you can never really know what he's thinking, because he says one thing, then says another, then claims he said neither, and everyone is like, yeah, that's normal.

Yeesh.

In the words of Jon Oliver, "This is not normal."

And all I can wonder and be terribly impressed by are those who voted for him thinking that the things he says don't carry any moral weight, that they don't matter, that they aren't hurtful because, luckily, most those who voted for Trump are the white privileged, albeit sorely under-educated and morally retarded.

I use retarded in its literal sense of retardation. Not as an ad hominem. I don't think people are acting retarded, but their moral reasoning is clearly retarded, leaving them to make bad moral decisions. Concepts like altruism, fairness, kindness, virtue, compassion, empathy and the like are absent from their vocabularies. It's why Trump was so popular with them.

Yes, the fact of the matter is, I'm appalled and horrified by the anti-intellectual and morally vacant claims of Trump and his entire campaign.

But...I'm MORE appalled and terrified by the people who voted for him thinking he was the lesser of two evils or that he really would make America great again.

If I knew how to wage a war on all those who embrace blissful ignorance as if it was their God given right, then I wouldn't be so bothered by Trump and his crippling ignorance and vile rhetoric. But the fact that he feels it his duty to inflict his painful ignorance and debauched rhetoric on the rest of us, and his ignorant supporters gladly eat up his nonsensical propaganda like yummy, yummy candies, makes me very worried for my country.

Then there are the other type of Trump supporters who get mad at the so-called-justice warriors calling Trump out on all his BS. It's really strange how mad they get at honest and good people trying to criticize a not so honest and not so good person who they seem to idolize. Very strange. Can't really explain it apart from the blatant ignorance part and retardation of any moral sense a decent person might have.

But I digress. I've been ranting about social justice for over a decade in my writing, my books, on my five blogs, in numerous OpEds, on social media and elsewhere. And it's impacted about zero percent of the people who obviously voted for Trump.

I don't think many realize how disconcerting that is. I wasn't expecting to change millions of minds. But I was hoping that by speaking reason, by being virtuous, and living an ethical life and upholding high moral principles, people would read and say this makes more sense than what this right wing alt news site is claiming.

As disappointed as I felt after the election, I thought, I'm quitting Facebook. It obviously doesn't do any good. And it's true. There's no breaching the bubble. Everyone sets up their own social-political-global bio-dome and never come out of it.

I've been luckier than most too. I've traveled the world. Been to 14 countries. Been forced to open my mind. I've had to learn to understand other peoples and cultures. I've had to step outside my bio-dome. I've stood on the precipice of an entirely new worldview, terrified of what I might discover, but knowing there was no going back. Only going forward.

I sometimes take it for granted that most people have never had to face this very real crisis. They haven't had to grapple with reality in this way. They've been content to live in the blissful seclusion their bio-domes and internet safe-spaces can afford them.

They don't want to face reality. Hell, they don't have the skill set for it. Which is why, the things Trump says makes sense to them. He speaks their same language. The language of ignorance and fear. Of a person with a worldview so astonishingly narrow it could split the atom.

In the grander scheme of things, Trump is like a pimple. A redish-orange crusted whitehead just needing to be popped. His legacy will do some serious damage. How could it not? The gushing ooze of his loathsome ideas will ooze all over us like a cum-blasted-whore at an orgy, and his shameful level of ignorance and disgraceful lack of moral sense will make sure that everyone gets a taste. Those who voted for him will share in the culpability of the damage of his reprehensible actions and words and that which he blithely inflicts upon the nation he swears he wants to make great again.

But greatness doesn't come from tearing down others, and that's all Trump has really offered. His policies are bogus. His foreign policy is non-existent. He lacks all leadership qualifications. He's not dignified or skilled enough to handle diplomatic matters. He has no military service. His legacy is on fake, failed universities, slanderous abuse to women and minorities, and litany of crashed-and-burned business with heaps of bankruptcy. Those are facts. And people actually thought, well, this is better that voting for the status quo. This will at least bring some real change.

Maybe in this they are partially right. Maybe Trump will be the catalyst to usher along the change we need. The change that says, you fucking morons...you voted for this prick, now reap the benefits and suffer--and then, when you're screaming your safe-word through your mouth gag, then, that's when we'll begin to want real change and not the bad facsimile that Trump offers in false promises and hollow convictions.

Of course, after the clusterfuck the next four years will undoubtedly prove to be, others will be left to clean up his mess. And after the deforestation needed to produce enough tissues to get Trump's filth off us, we'll do the only thing we can do...move forward. Because there is no going back. Not after this.

And, moreover, there is no "Making America Great Again." If you bought into that lie, sorry, you're #DAF. There is no bygone time of perfect peace and prosperity. There is no point in time where America could lay claim to being the pinnacle of greatness everyone imagines it once was. That's always been an illusion. A pipe-dream. But that's the thing we need to chase. That's what will keep us moving forward. The pursuit to make America great, but full well realizing it will never be great again. The competition isn't with other countries or nations. The competition is with ourselves. Can we be greater than yesterday? Can I make the person I am today better than the person I was yesterday--you see, that's the real challenge. That's what the whole pursuit of becoming great again is about. It's about chasing the ideal--about pushing forward.

Trump's lie was sweet and tempting though. To slip back into some magical bygone era--where everything was flowers and sunshine. Yeah, right. Any level-headed person in touch with reality could see the lie for what it was. But so many bought into it, for whatever reasons. Maybe they were down on their luck, maybe the economy had kicked them in the nuts, maybe they were the disenfranchised. I doesn't matter. They bought into the lie, and they voted a vulgar imbecile into the highest office in the land. Because he promised them a cure to all their woes.

But after the election, there was the lingering sense of dread in all of us who were privy to the reality of the situation. Those of us who remained firmly disillusioned to the lies we were being fed. We felt sick to our stomachs after. Because that was the moment we realized all those sweet lies really only amounted to a mountain of arsenic.

It was devastating to say the least.

But like I said...

The only thing we can do is go forward.

Keep struggling to try to make America better than it was yesterday. But it will be a hard and long four years before America can ever lay claim to decency let alone greatness again. And the fact that this doesn't bother the nearly 60 million who voted for Trump sure as hell bothers me.

Because, the truth of the matter is, the people who bought into the lie will be trying to take two-steps back for every step forward the nation makes together. We'll lose some ground in the next four years, I practically guarantee it.

But what's the use of complaining, right? It doesn't do a lick of good. People are enjoying the psychedelic ride of the insane acid trip too much to care about reality right now. And snapping our fingers in front of their faces and shouting, "snap out of it," isn't going to do much good.

But I jot down these thoughts now; as a matter of record. As a way of trying to get past this undeniable trauma, and reminding myself, all we can do is move forward.

That's going to have to be good enough, because at the moment, that's the best any of us can hope to do.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

I write books for a living. Both fiction and nonfiction. And one thing that stick's in my craw is censorship. Whether it is censorship of an author or artist's artistic vision, I cannot tolerate censorial attitudes. Whether it is censorship of a live video of an author talking on YouTube about their craft, I think the urge to censor reveals a lot about the people wanting to censor others.

​Censorship is just something I cannot abide. And it's worth saying a few words on.

Censorship of ideas is a form of thought police. It limits free expression of ideas. It kills discourse dead. It interrupts the dialectic with the white noise of whiners and complainers who'd rather hear the sound of their own caterwauling than try to have a civil discussion.

​Like the image above, it leaves blanks spaces in our discourse. As the button says, the worst part of censorship is.... *message redacted.*​It leaves you paranoid and wondering about what the information was. Was it important? Trivial? Was it dangerous? Or vital to our safety? You see, censorship changes our perception by deleting information that helps us evaluate or determine certain ideas. Perhaps worse still, is it leaves open a gap to be filled with Newspeak. That every overly politically correct dialog that is filtered through government bodies, regulated, and monitored. When governments begin to censor, things take a dangerous turn down a dark path. But it is no less disreputable when individual's try to censor one another either.

​I was recently censored by a fellow author in an online discussion because I called him on something he said that I perceived to be racist, and I may have used a curse word in my response. God forbid someone get angry at a racist comment and cuss at the person who said it. But, if you're wondering, I didn't use too harsh of language. Not really. Just told him to shove his puritanical white privilege where the sun don't shine.

​Now, after the fact, it's quite clear to me he didn't quite fully understand why his comment was racist. Institutional racism often goes unnoticed by those who have failed to check their white privilege. But it was basically a political directed comment about all the minorities and people complaining about the Trump election and the results of the presidential campaign. This person, although probably not intentionally trying to be racist, essentially made the unveiled comment that these people weren't true American's and they should get out.

​But it was in a public post, and the setting of the post was set to public, and I take that to mean the person has set up the discourse to be a public discourse. Instantly my post was removed and the author called me out to say he doesn't allow "bad" words.

​But he's fine with insinuating people of color and minorities should get out, because they can't accept the results of the election.

Way to stay classy.

What he neglected to do, however, was look at things from their perspective and maybe, just maybe, take the time to sympathize with their very real concerns. Instead, in condescending and dismissive fashion, he told them to get out.

​That's shirking responsibility and brushing your hands for dismissing an entire group of people--and that IS institutional racism. Instead of addressing their concerns, which may be genuine if not entirely valid, he wanted them to pack their opinions up, shut up, and leave. That won't solve anything. And quite frankly, it's rude as hell.

And I spoke out against what I perceived to be mistreatment of others.

And got censored for it.

​"My house, my rules," was the response I got.

And, well, it was on his blog, so he has the right to regulate content as he sees fit. But he chose to censor someone calling out institutional racism and who dared to challenge his point of view.

​And that's the problem, you see.

If you only want to retreat to the echo chamber of your own biases and prejudices, you'll never grow as an individual. Your imagination will suffer, because you will never expand your mind enough to make your art meaningful, your personality well rounded, or your worldview broad and all encompassing.

Your opinion will lack experience, knowledge, and will be restricted to all the other white noise of those with limited intellects, endless opinions on everything they know nothing about, and who seemingly have a never ending urges to speak their mind--as if their uneducated opinions meant anything to anyone with have a brain.

​But I won't sensor their opinions. Even the dumbass ones who say #DAF things like, "Trump was the lesser of two evils."

But I will shut down their racism.

​Because although I'm against censorship overall, there are two things I won't hesitate to censor. Racists. And sexist (often misogynistic) bigots.

Attack people of color, I shut you down.

Attack people for their gender or sexual orientation, I shut you down.

It may be your house, your rules, but why would I care about your rules if you're a sexist, racist, pig? Come on, I have a modicum of self respect, and acquiescence to bigotry is never noble.

What I will do, however, is shut you down.

That said, it is my humble opinion that restricting their views isn't technically censorship. Not really. Allow me to explain.

Censorship of hate doesn't limit how they can express their dissatisfaction. Not in the same way as limiting what words people can or cannot use. Shutting down their hate doesn't prevent them from stating in grown up words why they think or feel the way they do. But telling someone to stop complaining and get out does. And further, telling anyone who stands up for those people to shut up and then deleting their comments, is limiting in such a way that causes harm to the discourse.

​Even so, I should point out that when it comes to racism and sexism that are parts of stories, characters, whether in books, television, or movies...I think that all of it should be allowed because it captures the climate of the time and preserves it for posterity. With perhaps the addendum that it's not propaganda unfairly singling out or targeting people to attack.

​But people who make direct attacks on others. I do not accept that as a fair form of expression. And I will always jump to the aid of the downtrodden, the abused, the underprivileged, the minority. And that you can count on.

Does that make me a keyboard justice warrior? Hardly. I don't seek out assholes trying to pick a fight. I just stand up to them when they're picking on others. Or when they're acting superior. Or when they are being dicks. And I'll call them on it.

Censor me if you'd like. But that says more about you than it does me.

​Anyway, I just wanted to vent. Sorry for the interruption. Now back to your regular scheduled programming.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Frantic doesn't begin to describe how we felt. All the phone lines were dead. Cell service was gone. All we had were the news cameras and the flames. And then... then the unthinkable happened. The buildings fell.

Not knowing was the worst part.

Nerve-wracked, we waited by the phone in case somebody called with bad news. Or in case my brother called. To our great relief, my father managed to get through via a land-line. My brother was alright. He was alive.

A huge wave of relief washed over my whole family who were gathered in front of the television that day, but I'll never forget the terror I felt not knowing if my brother had died in NY while I sat helpless, watching it unfold on live television.

We went to visit shortly thereafter, to visit my brother and give him company after experiencing first-hand such a terrible tragedy.

Of course, we did go to ground zero. Going to ground zero was a solemn and hollowing experience.

On the way back to my brother's apartment, we walked by a fire station and there was a dalmatian sitting in the entrance. I bent down to pet it and a firefighter came over to me and talked to me about his brothers he lost in 9/11.

I didn't know what to say, so I just said thanks for sharing his stories with me. And I said thank you for your service. He asked where I was from, and I replied, "Montana." He was impressed by the fact that I'd come from so far away. And I thanked him again before parting ways.

I'll never forget that. It's just one of those memories that sticks with you.

I rarely get political, but when I do it apparently gets me unfriended by three of my Facebook friends.

Not that I care. I know that makes me sound callous, but given the context it really does seem that their refusal to let me voice my opinion after they have blathered theirs in a public forum is just a kind of censorship. They don't want to hear from detractors because we might say something that genuinely challenges their position. This would force them into an actual conversation to defend their views. They don't want to defend their views. They just want their views to be accepted as correct, without question.

Look, I'm sick and tired of this totalitarian impulse being exhibited by people who say that the peaceful protests of taking a knee or not holding your hand over your heart for the flag is offensive to them, personally. But here's a newsflash. Nobody cares if it's offensive to you. And besides this, all ya'all Kaepernick bellyachers really are missing the point here.

My three grandfathers, like the millions of others who have served, did not serve so I could live in a totalitarian state where my patriotism is dictated by others and where I'm not allowed to peacefully protest because someone might find it offensive.

They fought so I could live in a free society.

That came with the tacit knowledge that people might not always hold Old Glory to the same amount of respect or show Old Glory the exact amount of veneration expected. But they didn't fight for a flag. They fought for what it stood for. And when what it stands for seems to be trampled on, abused, and ignore on virtually a daily basis then that's when a protest has that much more meaning. Not less.

But, again, this is missing the point.

Look, if the protesters were taking a knee and kneeling JUST to be disrespectful, then yeah, that would be showing disrespect with the deliberate intent to cause offense.

But that's clearly not what they're doing.

They are peacefully protesting about how an entire segment of the populace (mainly blacks and other colored minorities) gets unfairly treated on a daily basis and, essentially, are saying this doesn't appear to them to be the land of the free. At least, not from their perspective as a minority race. And that was Kaepernick's message.

Yeah, yeah, I know he personally isn't the disenfranchised or downtrodden minority person in question here, but he used his celebrity and status as a pro football player to stand up for those who had no voice. Are you seriously going to question that man's patriotism here? Seriously?

Anyone who whitewashes what the protest is about to complain about how they personally feel offended by the protests are being self-centered by making it a point that they care more about a show of patriotism toward a symbol than the very rights that symbol protects.

Again, just an observation of the facts.

The question becomes, do you find offense with the protestor's message? If so, by all means, explain why. If you find fault with how they're going about it, well, that's a bit trickier. Because, last time I checked, that wasn't up to you -- how people choose to peacefully protest. And all your inane memes and bellyaching on social media doesn't change the fact that you're still missing the point.

Any which way you look at it, it looks a lot like whitewashing. Because that's exactly what it is. More specifically, it's whitewashing because these bellyachers are attempting to make the issue one of patriotism -- specifically matching your patriotism to their patriotism -- then they complain when you point out they've changed the subject. Because, after all is said and done, what have they said in this whole debate on the issue of the disenfranchised or the initial message of blacks being treated unfairly that sparked the controversy?

Nothing.

Well, then. I rest my case.

And that, folks, is called whitewashing the issues away.

All that anyone needed to do or say about Kaepernick's form of protest is that he has the right to do so. Then bite your goddamn tongue, and put your own hand over your damn heart and practice your freedoms however you want to and let others do the same. That's all it deserved.

Sorry to get political for a moment, but it had to be said. I'm tired of all these bellyachers complaining about being offended. Nobody cares. Fine. Be offended. Now shut up about it and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

And, while you're at it, maybe try not to whitewash important social issues in the future. It really does make you look like a bunch of self-serving, self-centered, culturally insensitive assholes.

Friday, September 9, 2016

1- Tell them: "If only prayer was enough." Let out a lengthy sigh for dramatic effect.2- *Yawn* (Place your hand over your mouth for added effect) and then check watch. Even if you're not wearing one, check anyway. The symbolic gesture will be much appreciated.3- Reply in an overly serious tone: "Takes one to know one."

4- "What makes you think I don't know the truth now?"5- As soon as they finish being judgemental, replicate their tone and immediately respond: "You can't have slarom without Dog." If they give you a strange look, act normal. Everything is fine.6- Ask: "How can something that doesn't exist love me?"7- Say: "The Devil is in the details." Linger just long enough for them to think about it then slowly back away, without breaking eye contact.

8- Ask: "What fool first said there was?"9- Tell them: "Puberty was a stage. Endless marathons of masturbating to porn in college was a stage. The thing with the midget and the amputee was a stage. This is nothing."

10- Say: "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, then shame on the Devil." Eyeball them suspiciously till they become nervous or change the subject.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

The Kalam Cosmological argument, as presented by William Lane Craig, says that

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, the universe having a cause, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:

The universe has a cause;If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore:

An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Three things are worth noting here, I think.

In quantum physics uncaused-causes actually exist. It’s part of the strange world of quantum physics which do not always abide by Newtonian intuitions about causality. As such, when dealing with the start of the universe which would have been a quantum singularity, saying it has a cause is quite meaningless. Craig has actually been corrected by physicists numerous times on this point from the late Victor J. Stenger to Lawrence Krauss.

Saying meaningless things is not trivial. Theologians thrive on it because they can obfuscate, spin, and reword their arguments to sound more meaningful than they actually are in a deliberate act of sophism.

If you let yourself be distracted, or confused, then the theologian can insert more unsupported premises because there’s really no necessary condition for having to prove nonsense. For example, the KCA takes for granted that the person being presented the syllogism even knows what God is. Assuming everyone knows of God, or what God you might be referring to out of the sea of endless possibilities, is a big assumption. But presuming there are those in which Craig’s definition of God is alien, then any word would suffice.

Really you’d have to ask, what do you mean by God? This would lead us to Ignosticism. Which would defeat the KCA before it could even present its second premise since without any context that premise would prove to be quite meaningless.

The second thing is with respect to how we accept things at face value and who gets to determine / dictate the definitions being used.

Now, imagine if Craig were to debate a Shintoist. And upon presenting his second premise the Shintoist gives WLC a shocked look. This would be understandable. After all, the Shintoist goes by a completely different definition of God. For the Shintoist, for all we know, the *tree in his back yard is his version of God. From the Shintoist’s perspective, Craig has essentially made the claim that the *tree in the Shintoist’s back yard created the universe! Which is nonsensical, I think you’ll agree.

Granted, we’d presume a person debating a theologian like William Lane Craig would familiarize themselves with the Christian concept of God before engaging with a Christian theologian in a debate. But shouldn’t Craig reciprocate by demonstrating the same form of respect in return by familiarizing himself with the Shintoist’s definition(s) of God? Why, then, does Craig’s definition of God become the default?

See, it’s that assumption that takes for granted that everyone believes in Craig’s version of God. It’s a false assumption.

Scientific-minded skeptics tend to be wary of anything that sounds vaguely nonsensical rather than keenly specific regarding something we can observe and measure. One might say that falls into the category of evidentialism and that the logic of the premise of the universe having a first cause is not wrong. That’s true. But it’s not wrong in the same way as saying “love is eternal” is not wrong. It’s not exactly a falsifiable claim. It could be. But it’s not something that we have support of either way. And we wouldn’t know how to measure that even if it were true.

By making their nonsensical claims unfalsifiable, theologians hope to shield their assumptions from criticism thereby safeguarding their God concept from having to meet any kind of burden of proof.

Thirdly, the additional assumptions pretend to be rooted in basic beliefs. Such as God being a Personal being. But these assumptions are based on presumed experiences of God, therefore are not properly basic. Believing God is loving or believing he is a Personal entity requires more information than mere belief that it is so. A properly basic belief is simply a belief that doesn’t break down to prior assumptions.

When we see the color red, for example, our belief that it is the color red we are seeing doesn’t depend on experience. Just the acknowledgment that there are colors detectable to the human eye. And that when we see certain colors, we know them, and we know they are the color we see because we believe that when viewing red it appears redly to us. And that is a properly basic belief.

Saying that God is an uncaused, Personal Creator of the universe, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful is still just baseless assumptions predicated on a nonsensical syllogism that thinks it’s being more clever than it really is.

That’s the very definition of sophism, folks.

***

The first time I heard WLC state the Kalam cosmological argument in a live debate, I was flabbergasted that a person of any education could be so fully proud of their own sophistry — so much to the point of declaring themselves the winner of the debate before it was over because nobody could argue against the logic of the syllogism.

Well, that’s true only if you buy into the assumptions that it’s good logic, or that the premise is sound, or that the syllogism makes sense given what we do know about the universe. And upon closer inspection, we find none of these hold up to scrutiny.

Back in the day, when I’d argue with theists, I’d try to explain this to them. They often would say I was invoking sophistry to avoid having to grapple with WLC’s flawless presentation of a logical syllogism for the existence of God. It only ever caused me to roll my eyes. No offense, but buying into someone else’s sophism doesn’t, in fact, make the criticism of that particular sophistry any less prevalent simply because you don’t understand the criticism.

Monday, September 5, 2016

If upon seeing a white dove you conclude all doves must be white, you have reasoned illogically.

If upon seeing a white dove you conclude some doves are certainly white, you have reasoned logically.

When seeing the universe exists you conclude the universe must have had a creator, sorry to say, this is illogical reasoning.

Upon seeing the universe exists and you conclude that the universe could possibly have had a creator, well, this is logical reasoning.

I made a similar argument suggesting that theism is the less rational position when compared to atheism for similar reasoning. Atheism doesn't invoke illogical reasoning to support its premise because it doesn't need to justify a supposition which isn't evidenced like theism clearly has to.

In effect, theism is saying all doves *must* be white whereas atheism is saying that claim doesn't seem likely. And how one arrives at such a claim matters.

Atheism is, more or less, a consequence of theism's failure to justify its premise that God exists. Thus theism cannot be fully justified without further evidence. That is, the theist needs to present all doves and prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they are, indeed, all white.

Failure to do this, only to turn around and say all doves *must* all be white is fallacious reasoning. Proving them all white is part of the burden of making the positive claim that all doves are, indeed, all white all of the time.

Atheism, on the other hand, doesn't need to be justified in the same way because it's a response to the theistic position. It's a counter-position. Whereas the theist claimed, in effect, that all doves are white, the atheist has simply said, that doesn't seem very likely. And have left it at that.

Not likely -- that's the atheist's position in a nutshell.

Theists who turn around and say to the atheist that they cannot prove that all doves are NOT white misses the point of having the burden of proof.

Atheism merely says that the failure of theism to find compelling evidence in support of its claim that all doves are white, or in this case that God exists, is a strong form of evidence for not all doves being white and, for that matter, is evidence for the absence of God's existence.

The question is, which of these claims, the theistic or atheistic, is justified?

Well, theism clearly is not justified, just as the saying "all doves must be white" is not justified, at least not without evidence to support the claim. So atheism, as a counter-claim, is justified simply by the fact that not all the doves have been counted.

God exists is not a claim that is currently true because we haven't any discernible evidence to say either way if God exists. It's an unknown and no viable evidence has been presented. But not having evidence could be a strong clue as to God not existing.

Now, it could be we simply haven't seen all the evidence yet. We haven't seen all the doves and so cannot say whether they're all white or not. It's possible. But then this is where probabilities come into play. Having never seen a mundane pigeon, only a white dove, what are the odds that there wouldn't be a non-white dove given the one white dove we saw? Well, for determining this you will need additional data. You will need to start counting all of your doves.

Atheism simply says that theism hasn't presented any doves for us to count. In other words, there's no evidence to support the claim -- not about doves, and certainly not about the existence of God. And assuming all doves are white, like assuming God exists, minus any evidence is not a valid conclusion. It's not a valid inference even. What it is, however, is the failure to present any doves. And the skeptic is well within her right to say that short of counting all of the doves, there's simply no way for the claim all doves are white to be proved true.

Therefore, to assume that all doves are white, or that God exists minus any reliable evidence to prove it -- and saying it's a priori true regardless of one's inability to prove it so, is not rational. One cannot know if it's true or false minus any valid proof of its being true. And the failure to demonstrate the claim coupled with the certainty that the claim must be true (and cannot possibly be false) makes the position irrational.

One might point out that the absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. And in certain rare cases, this is certainly true. But in the majority of the cases not having evidence of a thing is usually proof of its non-existence.

Fairies at the bottom of gardens and IPUs being fine examples of the majority cases of non-existent evidence being evidence of non-existence. Therefore, all things being equal, the assumption that another non-evidenced thing might fit the rule rather than the exception to the rule is certainly valid.

All things being equal, to automatically side with the theistic position and claim it is the correct one -- that it *must be true -- that all doves must be white or that God must exist -- given this lack of evidence is, quite frankly, illogical.

Siding with an illogical position because you like what it implies better than the competing position, is not entirely rational. It boils down to theists not being atheists because they like the sound of theism and cannot possibly entertain any other belief propositions, whereas atheists are not theists because theism is an unsupported position which rests on invalid assumptions.

Of course, atheism might still be proved wrong. But as the proposition stands, it's not relying on bad or fallacious reasoning, just on what seems to be the most likely case. As such, it's not illogical to assume God doesn't exist given the dearth of evidence. Rather, the burden is still squarely on the shoulders of the theist to prove their claim is the exception to the rule.

It's worth noting here that the atheist doesn't say that theism *must* be false. Atheists do not usually say God certainly doesn't exist. Well, some strong atheists might, but they might have other reasons for saying so outside of their belief proposition that atheism is more likely, given the status of evidence. That is to say, the weak atheists my have good arguments which may go a long way toward validating strong atheism. But that's a discussion for another time.

Mainly what we are contending with here is, when discovering a complete dearth of evidence, we can assume that, in all probability, the belief that God exists, like the belief all doves must be white, is false -- contrary to popular opinion.

As such, atheism is a more logical position. Theism, although rationally argued, is not itself a rational position given the nature of the reality we observe and the surprising lack of evidence, evidence we would expect to find in abundance if the theist proposition was true.

As I said, atheists could still be wrong. I've never denied the possibility, yet it seems the odds are slim to none of it actually being false. But what are those odds exactly? That depends on the probability of any given amount of evidence being counted in favor of the theisti vs. atheist position and wehther that evidence is enough to counter the atheist's skepticism.

In nearly every case it does not otherwise there wouldn't be so many atheists. And that is a strong indicator that theism has failed to support its claim. For if theism had a relatively well-supported claim, atheism would appear foolish on the basis that atheism could be easily falsified. The theist could simply point out the window and say, "Behold! God!" And the atheist, at the risk of making himself into a nitwit, would correct his mistake.

On the other hand, in our natural world in which we actually live, we ask where is God? And the theist points out the window at nothing and we atheists give them blank stares.

Now you know what I mean by my claim that atheism is the more rational position. But the fact remains, instead of quieting the atheists skepticism by presenting evidence, theism has merely pointed out the window at nothing and said, "See, God exists!"

That's not rational. That's akin more to a delusion than a substantiated belief -- much in the same way that believing IPUs exist is akin more to a delusion than a substantiated belief. Please, don't get me wrong. Theists are allowed such opinions, sure, but it doesn't mean it's a valid opinion or make it any less delusional simply because they believe it with an unprecedented certitude.

But who knows? Maybe atheism is wrong. Maybe the delusional belief in God turns out to be correct. Maybe miracles are real? It's possible.

But a possibility is not a certainty in the same way that saying some doves are white isn't the same as saying that all doves must be white. The truth of the matter lies in the *proving.

This is why, for me, a person claiming they've "experienced" God or having had a "personal relationship" with God and claiming they see him working wonders in their lives is NOT a form of valid evidence. It's not a proof for anything. It's anecdotal accounts of subjective experiences which are, in most cases, completely unsubstantiated. It's nice that they believe that. But that's all it is, a nice sounding belief. It doesn't make the belief true.

At best, such anecdotal accounts still need proving -- not so unlike the belief in God itself.

Atheism doesn't require any additional proving. If it did, it would mean evidence for God was so abundant as to be a certainty. If theism was true, the atheist would say, show me God and the theist would say, sure, and point out the window, and low and behold!, we'd see God and say, "Damn." And we'd feel like fools. But luckily, that's not the case. I look out my window and see a parking lot. And that's about as good of evidence as any theist has for God, which is to say, none at all.

The easiest way to falsify atheism is simply to have God manifest himself. Failure to do this little trivial thing of making an appearance validates the atheist's skepticism while, at the same time, confounds the theist's certainty.

Besides, if you could say that God exists with the utmost certainty, then, by all means, present your evidence. A Nobel Prize awaits you. However, I'm quite confident that the opposite is the case. I could be wrong, but then the question becomes, have you counted all the doves? No? Well, I rest my case.

Naturally, I welcome any responses to my reasoning here. Am I way off base? Or is there a case to be made that theism is less rational a position than atheism? Of course, this doesn't mean theists cannot rationalize well. I think we all, whether believer or nonbeliever, all rationalize about the same. But when it comes to the above, am I wrong here? Let me know what you think.